What are two benefits of using a live connection to a data source as compared to an extract? (Choose two.)

Question

Options

• AA live connection to a database server requires less network overhead than an extract.
• BA workbook connected to a live connection will have fresher data than a workbook connected to an
• CA live connection reduces the amount of memory used on a client computer as compared to an
• DA live connection is always faster than an extract.

• A
  6% (2)
• B
  83% (29)
• D
  11% (4)

Explanation

B is correct because a live connection queries the source database in real time, meaning the data reflects the current state of the source. An extract is a static snapshot that can become stale between scheduled refreshes.

C is correct because a live connection offloads query processing to the database server - no data is stored locally on the client. An extract downloads and caches data locally (e.g., a .hyper file in Tableau), consuming client-side memory.

A is wrong - the opposite is true. Live connections send queries over the network on every interaction, creating more network overhead. Extracts pay the network cost once at extraction time.

D is wrong - extracts are typically faster for queries because data is stored locally in a columnar, optimized format. Live connection speed depends on database performance and network latency.

Memory tip: Think of a live connection like streaming a movie (fresh, but dependent on the connection) vs. an extract like downloading it (faster playback, stored locally, but potentially outdated). "Live = fresh + server-side; Extract = cached + client-side."

No community discussion yet for this question.